$100,000 in damage from past flooding
Stennes shares problem with Waseca County
By DEB BENTLY
Staff Writer
New Richland area resident Paul Stennes, 96, has been looking for answers since 2015.
Based on what Stennes told Waseca County commissioners during their 8 a.m. work session on Nov. 21, a heavy rainstorm that year caused flooding in a storage building on his property–one whose floor was about two feet above surrounding terrain and which stood in a location that had never previously experienced flooding. As rainwater pooled, levels inside the building reached an estimated three feet in depth.
Stored in the shed was a collection of vintage snowmobiles, most of which had been in operating condition. All were covered by water, and their engines ruined. Also covered in water were a number of vehicle motors, a number of vintage tractors, and a nearly new lawnmower. Adding insult to injury, a number of barrels holding oil were raised and tipped, leaving residue on many surfaces.
Stennes did not have flood insurance on the property, since it had never, in the many years he had owned it, been subject to flooding. Essentially, everything–Stennes says roughly $100,000 worth of machines and equipment–was a loss.
Stennes told commissioners the cause of the flooding was obvious: a berm had been constructed near State Highway 13 to reduce the amount of water going into the city of New Richland. That same berm had steered the water onto his property.
Stennes told commissioners he had tried to follow up on the damage fairly immediately. He said he approached the New Richland city council, but was told the city had not built the berm and so was not liable. Knowing Hwy. 13 to be a state highway, he also contacted state offices in Mankato, where he met with another dead end.
Uncertain where to go from there, he had stopped reaching out. But the financial costs and personal sense of loss had stayed with him.
Stennes found himself in front of the county board on Nov. 21 thanks to the intercession of soil and water conservation district (SWCD) worker Larry Muff, who had spoken at a prior meeting requesting that Stennes be given a chance to speak his piece.
Muff told commissioners his intervention had nothing to do with his job with the SWCD, except that he learned of Stennes’ plight during a “one watershed, one plan” meeting held this past March.
Stennes told board members he could remember three times in his past when farmers had built structures to prevent flooding on their own property which led to damages on someone else’s land. He pointed out that state law placed liability on the property owner who built the structure, then asked whether the county was somehow exempt from those laws.
County commissioner Doug Christopherson, who represents the New Richland area, said he felt considerable personal anguish over the situation. He pointed out, however, that the berm was built because a prior flooding incident had forced the evacuation of about 30 elderly residents from the New Richland Care Center–placing their health and safety at risk.
Commissioner DeAnn Malterer expressed deep personal sympathy for Stennes’ situation. She pointed out that the government’s responsibility to protect people’s lives and safety is greater than its mandate to protect property.
“A decision to compensate, that’s not something we can do lightly,” she said, noting that any payment the county might make to Stennes might be viewed as a precedent in future cases.
County attorney Rachel Cornelius called attention to the eight-year time delay as a complication when it came to questions of precedent and liability.
County manager Michael Johnson asked Stennes what dollar amount he was requesting.
Stennes’ reply was, “Well, I don’t want to be unreasonable.” In the end, he asked for $30,000 in compensation to cover the cost of the essentially new mower and another pull-behind mower which had been in the shed. There was also the problem of documenting Stennes’ losses, since many of the ruined items had been disposed of long ago.
Muff pointed out that information he had submitted to the board included only those losses which could be documented.
Board members assured Stennes they would investigate the questions of liability and precedent further, and would be in touch with him in the future.